Paul
Banned
I read through this , full of sangria. Did someone mention clay tablerts? What happens if they get wet? Does God become Od? Which becomes Odd. Which is em, odd.
That usually works okay, but even in math and formal reasoning it may be too strong because sometimes the rules for acceptable proof may tighten by consensus. For instance some mathematicians don't accept the use of the law of excluded middle because it can result in non-constructive proof.My view of proof is that it requires incontrovertibility.
supersiliisppacchisdosesesThe person who posts a word with the most syllables wins...
That usually works okay, but even in math and formal reasoning it may be too strong because sometimes the rules for acceptable proof may tighten by consensus. For instance some mathematicians don't accept the use of the law of excluded middle because it can result in non-constructive proof.
Mathematician Kurt Gödel for instance, formalised an ontological proof for the existence of God. The proof goes something like this:God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.These statements can be represented mathematically using modal logic, and the proof is meticulous -- if you are happy with nonconstructive proofs. I'm not, which is why I make such a fuss when I see definitions of God like Gödel's one above.
(Ruv is quoting a famous smartass)
God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.
Just for reference, as an atheist I would view such statements as evidence only of the need to cut funding to university Philosophy departments.
While Gödel wrote about it, the ontological proof of god is much older than him, and despite all his efforts fails on numerous levels. The most readily obvious, and thus glaring failure of this argument is that it can only prove logically the existence of an entity whose existence is the greatest possible. It does not provide anything about any other predicate, so it does not prove the existence of anything resembling what one would call god. It only proves that that which exists with the greatest possible existence, really does exists. Kind of a no-brainer really.Mathematician Kurt Gödel for instance, formalised an ontological proof for the existence of God. The proof goes something like this:
God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.These statements can be represented mathematically using modal logic, and the proof is meticulous -- if you are happy with nonconstructive proofs. I'm not, which is why I make such a fuss when I see definitions of God like Gödel's one above.
That's a bit premature. If anything, it shows that you shouldn't let mathematicians engage in philosophy. They might hurt themselves.Just for reference, as an atheist I would view such statements as evidence only of the need to cut funding to university Philosophy departments.
While ulterior motives are one explanation, i think it's nothing as sinister, just human nature. Studies have shown that all humans have a blind spot when it comes to examining arguments which confirm their beliefs. It doesn't matter for example if you're a hard-ass conservative or bleeding heart liberal, if you hear an argument in support of your political stance, you'll swallow crap that'd make you laugh out loud if brought forth in support of the opposition. It's the same for religions, hell, even post-purchase rationalisation is an example of this. Some people are better at critical thinking than others, and some are worse, but no-one is always rational about everything, it's just human nature. Everyone has some blind spots. That might be about politics or about religion or about vegetarianism.These are people smarter than most of us, certainly me. He must have had ulterior motives, as did Gödel when it formulated what he must have known was blatantly flawed proofs. These were not adolescent blunders. There's clearly more to the story on both of them.
Well, there are two christian sects which carry the word in their official names, so they'd probably be the ones with the right to decide what it means. (The Russian and Greek orthodox churches)I thought "orthodoxy" was whatever I think is the true belief. And "heresy", whatever I think is the wrong belief? If I'm religious, that is.
And Orthodox Christianity is referred to that way by other Christians with a nod and a wink. At least if they know what the term means. Because they obviously don't think their belief is false.
Am I wrong?
Indeed. Hence my use of the word 'formalised'. The argument dates back to St Anselm, and the much under-overlooked Persian scholar Abd Allah Ibn Sinna (Avicenna) before him.While Gödel wrote about it, the ontological proof of god is much older than him
For me, it doesn't prove even that.The most readily obvious, and thus glaring failure of this argument is that it can only prove logically the existence of an entity whose existence is the greatest possible.
While ulterior motives are one explanation, i think it's nothing as sinister, just human nature. Studies have shown that all humans have a blind spot when it comes to examining arguments which confirm their beliefs. It doesn't matter for example if you're a hard-ass conservative or bleeding heart liberal, if you hear an argument in support of your political stance, you'll swallow crap that'd make you laugh out loud if brought forth in support of the opposition. It's the same for religions, hell, even post-purchase rationalisation is an example of this. Some people are better at critical thinking than others, and some are worse, but no-one is always rational about everything, it's just human nature. Everyone has some blind spots. That might be about politics or about religion or about vegetarianism.
For Gödel and Lewis, who were very sure of their theism, those arguments probably sounded convincing, simply because they didn't apply the same standards of critical thinking they applied to their other work.
Symbolic logic is like algebra. Just because we invent a formula and can confirm that it has certain behaviours does not mean that the formula applies to anything real. Gödel was an idealist. There are several things he assumed about his existence proof that others (like me) might disagree with. For instance, I reject his definition of 'greater' because I don't think that any two intelligent people will necessarily agree on what 'greater' means.I wasn't implying that anything sinister was going on, but Gödel was a logician!
It does, as long as you accept "existing" as being a predicate.For me, it doesn't prove even that.
It is self-contradictory of course. Actual definition of gods are the best friends of the strong atheist, since a god which has defined properties can be disproven (in principle). It is very easy to disprove the classical christian omnimax god for example. Of course, not every defined property immediately disproves a god. Saying god is blue for example (never change a working predicate) does not offer much to work with. A panentheistic god on the other hand is impossible to disprove.I'm not even sure that such a claim of simultaneously holding all positive statements isn't self-contradictory. Or if it were true, how could I know that it's true?
Not necessarily, "contingent" is also used synonymously to "dependent on".Thirdly, he plays a game with 'contingent' and 'necessary' truths that I'm not sure I accept. A contingent truth is something that might be true, while a necessary truth is something that must be true. While might and must be true mean particular things to Godel, I'm not entirely sure what might be true means to me; but must be true means something different to me than it does to him.
Because his theism was a deeply held belief, which he cherished. That's how these blind spots work. People are very very rarely able to recognize them and no-one can give them up. Change the subject around, but not give them up. We don't want to believe we're wrong (it's how used car salesmen survive), and we're even less willing to believe we're wrong if it's regarding a subject we feel strongly about. On the other hand, we're very uncritical when it comes to examining claims which confirm our beliefs. It's how the whole UFO/WTC/Moon Landing conspiracy community exists for example. There's a deep belief that there are conspiracies all around them, keeping them out of the loop, and any claim confirming that is taken at face value. Or take Newagers and claims about crystal skulls and natural remedies. Or conservatives and Palin. Or liberals and Gore. Or engineers who think they found the way to disprove the theory of evolution, or the perpetual motion machine. Or.... (i could go on here)<snip> This proof as it stands make him look like an idiot. My guess is that they did tell him, and for whatever reason, he didn't care. We can only speculate on why.
Well, there are two christian sects which carry the word in their official names, so they'd probably be the ones with the right to decide what it means. (The Russian and Greek orthodox churches)
Take Pascal as another example. Not a guy anyone could call stupid, and yet he's famous for his wager, one of the most hilariously inept arguments for belief in the christian god (not the existence of the same) ever made.
That's the christian position. I consider any subdivision within a group who consider themselves to belong to the same faith a sect. Because to be honest, i can't be bothered to remember what dozens of religions big enough for subdivisions want their subdivisions called.A sect is a much broader sweep and usually implies "division" or wider opposing and conflicting belief. Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are sects.
No he wasn't. The problem with the multitude of possible gods might be the biggest one, but it's not the only one. There's others, for example the fact that it's untrue to say that belief in a god has not cost associated with it, or even theological problems, such as the question whether belief in a god out of pure opportunism would be acceptable to the god. (Prattchett has a hilarious footnote about this argument in one book, mentioning how, as the philosopher who invented the argument died, he was welcomed to the afterlife by a mob of gods who wanted to show exactly what they thought of smart-asses like him)On a binary scale where on one side is God, and always the same God, and on the other side is nothing, then Pascal's wager makes a lot of sense. Based on philosophy of the day, I think Pascal was doing all right.
That's the christian position. I consider any subdivision within a group who consider themselves to belong to the same faith a sect. Because to be honest, i can't be bothered to remember what dozens of religions big enough for subdivisions want their subdivisions called.
Though the really broad divisions you are referring to are usually called denominations.
. A panentheistic god on the other hand is impossible to disprove.
".
It requires me to accept more than that -- for instance, that it's allright to run quantifiers over statements. E.g. 'Let us call that entity for which all statements of blueness are true, a smurf'. This definition contains a quantifier ('all') applied to 'statements of blueness'. I don't think I can accept it as legitimate unless there is at least a repeatable method to tell me whether a statement I read is a statement of blueness.It does, as long as you accept "existing" as being a predicate.
Here you're saying that you don't like ontological arguments either. I understand your dislike, since I share it. In nature if we want to consider whether (for example) black holes exist, I want an unabiguous, finite definition (so Gödel's fails on that), a working model for how it might operate to help me recognise them (Gödel didn't supply it), and then I'll happily go looking for black holes. Black holes being black we may not be able to see them, but the working model will help us find evidence for their existence, and the unambiguous definition will let us test the evidence to see whether it's evidence for the object described.If we want to the argument for Smurfs, we'd first need to establish that a) Smurfs are real and b) they fit the definition.
I would suggest that actual definitions of anything are the friend of the rationalist, since without them we can't really say much.Actual definition of gods are the best friends of the strong atheist, since a god which has defined properties can be disproven (in principle).
Yes. In Modal Logic, 'contingent truth' is written as '◊'. So 'It might rain', could be written as '◊Raining', while 'It always rains' could be written as '□Raining' A common interpretation is that we can enumerate 'possible worlds' in which some things are true and some false. So we can write 'In all possible worlds where it is raining, it is also cloudy.' '□(Raining→Cloudy)'. In Modal Logic, a possible world is described by whatever's true in it, so 'it depends' means 'it's possible'.Not necessarily, "contingent" is also used synonymously to "dependent on".
Thanks, Ephrem.there's a lot of different "Christian" views on how you can or can't "prove" His existence and there are a lot of cultural and historical conditions that sort of massage the way in which those views are expressed, digested and understood. Take that and throw them against the post-enlightenment, age of reason, "modern" social programs and you have a high art version of the Jerry Springer show.
Two thousand years from now both sides might look like cavemen arguing over whether or not there ever will or won't be a way to touch the moon. Both are probably right insofar as the vacuum of their experiences go.